Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think that a smart enough president will be fully capable of selecting his/her own cabinet. Like good ol' Abe Lincoln.

At 3/16/08 01:27 PM, Zeistro wrote:

I used the Splinter Cell reference in order to summerize my ideas, I understand that we at the moment do not have "Sam Fishers" but we do have Special Operatives, and there is a sliding scale that includes more than just "NOT WAR" and "WAR". I don't listen to any political radio, television (beyond The Daily Show and Colbert Report), or read many political texts. I think that war is fundamentally a last resort, in which both sides LOSE, and it should be treated as such.

I cannot provide a completely fail-proof plan, but I sure as hell know that someone else can. Maybe if I sat down with the heads of this nation and think-tanked, we would come up with something. I just think that this war was not thought out enough.

My last post was GENERALITIES, yet you nit-picked and wanted to dissect my every word for it's face value, rather than finding my message. The spirit rather than the physical writing.

No boobs, but you're allowed to blow off people's skulls and mutilate their corpses.

Haha, no problem. I do this stuff for fun.

At 3/23/08 09:56 PM, Christopherr wrote: No man.

UH is the way to go. Haven't you listened to Obama or Hillary? They're agents of change.

I love Obama as much as the next liberal, but don't be a fanboy. Do your own research

Universal Heathcare is an awesome idea, on paper. Proper implementation is the tricky part. With a nation that is already heavily averse to the slightest hint of increased taxes funding has become a major issue. Obama claims that he will serve the masses by dropping Bush's wealth favoring tax cuts, but that capital should be, and will be, served mainly to the mess that was left by the former administration; the war, the economy, social security, etc.

The US is a capitalistic based society, and it is hard to find the incentive to pledge money to something that we do not directly feel the benefits from. Universal Healthcare is one of these said institutions. It will, if properly implemented, help out those that previously were denied care because of poor socio-economic standing - not the people that will be fronting the brute of the capital costs.

Hospitals will also feel the need to put in their two cents, with Universal Healthcare a much larger stake of doctors and other administrators of health related services will be paid out of the pockets of Uncle Sam. This means less money for the same amount of work. Feelings of altruism and charity will only go so far in this multi-billion dollar industry. An alternative is opening additional clinics and hospitals that will be funded purely by the government, this idea is more than likely the long term plan for Universal Healthcare, but the stratification of the privately owned and governmently owned hospitals is inevitable.

I still like the idea, but it has major implementation issues for a nation just beginning to adopt it.

Evil is subjective.

Amazing, I know it's been said, but what you've done here was so simple yet so moving. A true inspiration for all artists and aspiring artists.

Back before 1960s jail was seen as a place to rehabilitate, and turn criminals and outliers into functioning and contributing members of society.

Don't wash your face so much...your pores excrete oils in response to there being none there, so after you wash your face your pores excrete more oil...and in a larger quantity. As for acne...medication from a dermatologist?

It's happened for the past few weeks. The cost of oil and gold have been sky rocketing

At 3/16/08 06:25 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote:

At 3/16/08 06:06 PM, kahncccp wrote:

At 3/16/08 06:00 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: So was Charlie Chaplin, what's your point?

People tend to say socialists are idiots.

No, just misguided. Usually someone who likes the ideas of socialism will be very smart, at least that's my personal experience. They just lack the understanding of human behavior that causes it to fail.

Any type of government could be called misguided because human nature is sporadic and unpredictable. Sure socialism gives too much room for an individual to rise to power, but an electoral democracy has far too many exchanging hands to go without corruption.

and so what's your point?

At 3/13/08 10:58 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 3/13/08 10:23 PM, ASHero wrote: Up sales tax

Rather we should lower sales tax, lower income tax; lower all taxes.

close corporate loopholes

Give tax breaks to companies that provide jobs and wealth. Reduce the corporate tax in our country which, in case you didn't know, is currently the second highest in the world.

no pandering to large companies.

No emotionally-charged, ill-informed blame games, pandering to the unproductive, by singling out companies for blame even though it is those very large companies that are providing jobs and capital which are essential to our economy in the first place.

In the process, we should make Bush's tax cuts permanent, reduce personal gains tax, reduce the corporate tax, provide tax incentives to companies that create jobs etc...

You don't help the economy by taking more money out of it and giving it to the government. In order to help the economy, we should free up as much capital as possible in the market.

The US federal budget for 2008 is $3.1 trillion, almost as high as the entire economic output (GDP) of the next largest economy in the world; Japan. Our government's budget is higher than the entire economic output of France, Germany, or the UK. Our government's budget is almost about 3 times the entire economic output of Canada!

The last thing our government needs is more money to spend as inefficiently as it always does. Instead of raising taxes and giving the government an incentive to keep spending it unwisely, we should cut government spending and decentralize services. Whoever becomes president should whip the budget committee into shape and force them to quit wasting so much money on feckless government programs that don't work.

I agree with you to a point about freeing up capital to be spent in the free market, but when the funds are just circulated amongst the highest of the high class it really does no good for the overall economy. Bush's tax cuts benefited only the rich, and hurt anyone lower that the middle class. This did nothing to encourage the economy. The ones that now have more money to spend, already had money to start with. So lowering the tax cuts put in place by Bush, the lower socio-economic classes would also be given the means to stimulate the economy, and by population, they far outnumber those being benefited now.

Taxes aren't a bad thing, especially under a government that has its head on straight. Money in the government isn't necessarily money away from the people. In hindsight, maybe increasing sales tax would be a bad idea, because people see taxes as you do, bad, but in reality taxes and the money raised from said taxes can alleviate our gigantic (and growing) national debt. Less national debt would decrease our international debt (which is the majority of our national debt) and therefore giving off shore countries less influence and control over our existing economy. The US economy should belong to the US.

At 3/13/08 05:43 PM, ThePretenders wrote: The bombing of Japan was justified. What they did to China, Korea, South-East Asia and POWs was just evil and they needed to be taught a lesson.

A lesson? Really? Is over 300 people killed from the bombings and years and years of radiation fallout was A LESSON? Two wrongs don't make a right, and especially when human life is involved. The bombings on Japan were far worse than 9/11. Think about it from the Japanese perspective, juxtapose it into today's view point. What if Iraq dropped a nuke on us because we've invaded their country and cause mass turmoil in not only their state but the entire Middle East? What if? I'm betting you'd continue to posses the same patriotic zeal that you do now. We're not always in the right, we're not always the knights in shining armor. We can do wrong, and we have.

At 3/13/08 01:51 PM, SirLebowski wrote: I wish to ask, for the sake of being curious, how many people here with such bold opinions on the subject, are gay.

It's like a group of white people talking about how hard it is to be black.

In other words, if you aren't gay how the fuck do you know if it's a choice or a preference?

Agreed. I personally think it's not a choice. Have you heard stories of those that are persecuted because of their sexual tendencies? Why would they choose a life of ridicule and discrimination? They're people, they don't want to be thought of any less than straight people are. I don't know if it's genetic, but I'm pretty sure it's not a choice.

Up sales tax, close corporate loopholes, no pandering to large companies.

Pearl Harbor was unrelated to the bombings...Pearl Harbor was the event that drew us into the war, the bombings were an attempt to end the war.

They were willing to defend the homeland tooth and nail, arming both women and children. That's why it was a military quagmire, but the thing was we didn't have to make a move on them at all. They were on the verge of surrender, they would've withdrawn from the war even if we had held off on the nuclear attack.

I agree with the poster. Japan was our enemy, but was also on the verge of surrender. What we did was more than just the war, it was to test our shiny new toy; the nuclear warhead. It was uncalled for, the Japanese didn't plan on moving off their island, they were ruthless infantry, and that's why no one on the Allies side cared to try to invade them. If we had left them alone, they would not have stood in the war without Germany.

How about a precise war in which the targets were clearly defined and the goals and objectives realistic and obtainable? We went all gung-ho into a situation which continues to be unresolved. I do not, nor can, have the information that the executive branch possesses, so my idea of handling the aftermath includes reconnaissance. Instead of a War on "Terror" why not prescribe something more like War on Al-Qaeda, something that doesn't give the government and open ticket to attack whoever they damned well please. Iraq, Iran, Palestine, who knows what's next. We took an elephant gun to kill a fly. I would've much rather seen a precise, surgical strike that would've strategically removed heads of power. Think more Splinter Cell rather than Call of Duty

Those were Al-Qaeda not Iraq or Afghanistan, common misconception. In fact a major proprietor of Al-Qaeda is Saudi Arabia who in turn owns a lot of the major oil companies and repositories around the Middle East - including and not limited to - the largest in the world surrounding the Caspian Sea. War is bad, always, but if war is warranted in anytime it's to defend our nation's security. We were attacked by terrorists; not Iraqis; not Afghanis. We're causing an incredibly decimating amount of collateral damage, destroying their infrastructure, and creating civil unrest unrivaled even beneath the dictatorship that we've theoretically removed. Civil war plagues the lands, and we're left without an exit strategy. Meanwhile, back in the motherland, we're left with underfunded programs and civil and social problems going unaddressed.

There it is.

It continues to be a problem not with the individual corporations, but rather the suppliers. Along the Caspian Sea there continues to be large oil repositories that remain partially or entirely untapped. It's not the natural supply, it's the controlled reduction of supply as to produce a false shortage and the demand staying the same due to stingy consumers. This perverse skewing of economy's most basic rule has driven the prices to astronomical amounts, and putting the corporation's profit margins in the 300th percentile.

I liked both, but Digimon I could relate to more. I mean, it was far more possible than Pokemon...I personally liked Angemon...you know when Patamon digivolved.

Herein lies a common misconception - that our rocketing oil and gas prices are due to a lack of oil. Rather these astronomical jumps are due to the oil companies capitalizing on the thoughts that we're low on oil. They've seen profit margins in the triple digits; sometimes over the 300th percentile. With the solidifying control of the Iraqi oil fields, America is in no way short of oil.

wat

At 3/12/08 08:02 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 3/12/08 07:37 PM, ASHero wrote:

I support peace

As long you do not support what happened at Time Square.

Now that's just absurd. I am an American and I cannot in anyway sympathize with those that perpetrated such an act on September 11th. That was an out and out attack on us and our way of life, but the aftermath was shottily handled and misconstrued to draw focus elsewhere.

WRONG, by not supporting the war it isn't in turn not supporting the troops. These rallies aren't praising the death of our troops, but rather wishing to stop their superfluous expenditure; to bring them home. To support peace is not to abhor our troops. So supporting the war could be called not supporting the troops.

I support peace

Once you get to this point of awesomeness it's just a statement of pure opinion. It's like the the Jimi Hendrix v. Eric Clapton debate..

1. Beatles
2. Pink Floyd
3. Rush

Actually, with the way the US economy is going everything in change will be worthless sooner or later...we'll soon be dealing in Benjamins rather than Washingtons...

New governor of NY is BLACK and...BLIND! But he's on good terms with both the Republicans and Democrats so I think he'll be a stand up governor.

Discuss.

No, or what else would give me luck?

On a more serious note, I think that the penny is a vital increment of money. I've heard that the penny costs more than 1 cent to produce, so rather than eliminating it, why not make its creation a cheaper process? Don't know what else to say on this matter...